Not a bad thread but misses a critical point. If the Sulfur emissions policies were known for >5 years and discussed for >10 years why aren’t they part of mainstream climate models? The best answer I could find was essentially that models use a proxy for aerosols and so including the new policy might cause “double counting” of this forcing. This ‘conservatism’ caused this effect to be left out of the models. So the s…
Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
21–30 of 581 posts
Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
#22I can’t remember who (maybe he’s quoted further in the thread than I quickly scrolled) but there’s a scientist who has been talking about this on Twitter for a long time (when I used to use it). Pretty scary these things can happen, but he was warning basically we are further along with global heating than we thought and this pollution was just masking some of the effect in the Northern Hemsiphere of CO2 we’d already…
Sorry if it's a naive question but if it was actually helping the situation, why do we need to stop? So it seems the sulfur was removed for the obvious season that it's not good for respiratory health, but it may be a necessary evil for sometime ?
Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
#23Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
#24I can’t remember who (maybe he’s quoted further in the thread than I quickly scrolled) but there’s a scientist who has been talking about this on Twitter for a long time (when I used to use it). Pretty scary these things can happen, but he was warning basically we are further along with global heating than we thought and this pollution was just masking some of the effect in the Northern Hemsiphere of CO2 we’d already…
Sorry if it's a naive question but if it was actually helping the situation, why do we need to stop? So it seems the sulfur was removed for the obvious season that it's not good for respiratory health, but it may be a necessary evil for sometime ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
Most of the dimming effect was from massively polluting coal burning. I'm sure you understand why we had to stop that. CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and stays there for thousands of years.. This sulfur that causes dimming stays for a year or two.
Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
#25I can’t remember who (maybe he’s quoted further in the thread than I quickly scrolled) but there’s a scientist who has been talking about this on Twitter for a long time (when I used to use it). Pretty scary these things can happen, but he was warning basically we are further along with global heating than we thought and this pollution was just masking some of the effect in the Northern Hemsiphere of CO2 we’d already…
Sorry if it's a naive question but if it was actually helping the situation, why do we need to stop? So it seems the sulfur was removed for the obvious season that it's not good for respiratory health, but it may be a necessary evil for sometime ?
His statement was essentially that: right now, were effectively seeding clouds with sulfuric acid. The sulfuric acid is bad but if the cloud seeding is actually good, we could instead seed them by spraying sea water into the air.
Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
#26Not a bad thread but misses a critical point. If the Sulfur emissions policies were known for >5 years and discussed for >10 years why aren’t they part of mainstream climate models? The best answer I could find was essentially that models use a proxy for aerosols and so including the new policy might cause “double counting” of this forcing. This ‘conservatism’ caused this effect to be left out of the models. So the s…
How are these even in the same galaxy, let alone the same thing?
Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
#27Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have to call it X.
I'm a bit out of the loop here, but is the letter "X" a part of Elon's company branding? Since that's not the first time he used the letter "X" in that manner. The single letter "X" is brimming with symbolism and implications. Without further explanation we may never know why the rebranding was necessary.
Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry if it's a naive question but if it was actually helping the situation, why do we need to stop? So it seems the sulfur was removed for the obvious season that it's not good for respiratory health, but it may be a necessary evil for sometime ?
There are people saying we should not just not stop, but even increase sulfur injection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio... The thing is, this is not a one time solution. We would have to do it continuously, or else the temperature would quickly rise again. And we would have to increase sulphur injection if the CO2 level keeps rising. It could be a temporary solution though, e.g. until al…
Cover Greenland in a reflective blanket?
Sounds like it is time to panic...and actually do what needs to be done.
Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have to call it X.
I'm a bit out of the loop here, but is the letter "X" a part of Elon's company branding? Since that's not the first time he used the letter "X" in that manner. The single letter "X" is brimming with symbolism and implications. Without further explanation we may never know why the rebranding was necessary.